What are the origins of ACI 318's minimum flexural reinforcement criteria?
What are the origins of ACI 318's minimum flexural reinforcement criteria?
(OP)
As a student at a Dutch university, I am presently writing my thesis on "How can prefabricated connections be designed to be ductile based on international standards," as part of the requirement to graduate in civil engineering. Along my research journey, I have encountered a discrepancy in building codes.
In Eurocode 2, the underlying principle for minimum reinforcement stems from the perspective that the steel must deform elastically/plastically before the beam fails.
As I delve into researching the ductile properties of reinforced concrete, I find myself calculating the minimum area of flexural reinforcement in an nonstressed beam according to ACI-318 and the New Zealand Standards. Interestingly, the values obtained differ by a factor of 2 from those in EC2.
I was wondering of someone could guide me in the right direction for an answer, or perhaps even has a direct answer to my question.
Thank you in advance,
Robin
In Eurocode 2, the underlying principle for minimum reinforcement stems from the perspective that the steel must deform elastically/plastically before the beam fails.
As I delve into researching the ductile properties of reinforced concrete, I find myself calculating the minimum area of flexural reinforcement in an nonstressed beam according to ACI-318 and the New Zealand Standards. Interestingly, the values obtained differ by a factor of 2 from those in EC2.
I was wondering of someone could guide me in the right direction for an answer, or perhaps even has a direct answer to my question.
Thank you in advance,
Robin
Talk To Other Members